Gamespot's new review system is up as many people know, and i have to say that i don't like it. Mainly because its too absolute. It deals in absolutes and doesn't leave any room for subtleties. Now the Gamespot staff has defended this by saying that there is not enough difference in a 9.2 and a 9.3 score. Well there is a difference, and its that one is better than the other, but not by much. Now a game is either totally better than another game, or its the same, or its totally not better. Its ridiculous. Maybe i'm being a little nitpicky here, but i think that a review system with quarter values (1, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2, etc etc) would be much much better. At least then you get a clear view on the broad message of the review, and the details of it.

It just blows my mind that you would go radically from one system to another that isn't as good. I think that a quarter value system would be perfect. It would give you a clear message of if the game is great or not, and still let you distinguish whether its getting the appropriate score. I think that many games are going to get a score thats not correct. For an example, Say a game would normally get a 9.7 score. Now it has to either get a 10 or a 9.5. That to me is just not right. The game is going to have to either be "perfect" or get a score that isn't giving it justice. Its not being truthful in my opinion... not that i'm saying that Gamespot is full of liars or something, but i really think that its going to constrict them a lot.

Also whats up with the score 8.5? i don't like that score at all. Its like inbetween being just pretty good, and being awesome.... i feel sorry for it